(Long Island, N.Y.) Man, everyone loves Facebook, the networking website where people carry out a great chunk of their social lives nowadays (as sad as that may be). But was anyone expecting a Facebook movie? Not me. And was anyone expecting it to actually be exciting, engrossing, stylish, and edgy? Not me. But The Social network, directed by Mr. Fight Club himself, David Fincher, is surprisingly all of those things and more.

However, as good as The Social Network is, one tiny little factor prevented me from getting maximum enjoyment out of it; the fact that everyone involved with the creation of Facebook has confirmed that about 80% of what you see on the screen is pure fiction. Now of course, this is true for about 99.9999999% of all movies that are “based on a true story,” but usually those movies are about people who are either very obscure or very dead. It’s not often that we get a “based on a true story” movie that’s about something as recent as Facebook, which was created in 2004. “Historical” movies feel kinda weird when people are texting, blogging, and doing all the same things you’re doing today.

But the main thing that makes The Social Network hard to swallow is HOW they chose to revise history. Now, Facebook was basically made by Mark Zuckerberg and his fellow nerds, people who locked themselves in their Harvard dorm rooms 24 hours a day programming code. But according to Aaron Sorkin’s screenplay, adapted from Ben Mezrich’s nonfiction book The Accidental Billionaires (2009), Zuckerberg and company also spent an equal amount of time drinking, hitting nightclubs, wrecking rental housing, and scoring constantly with hot babes. It makes for entertaining viewing, sure, but why delve so deeply into revisionist history like that with such a well-known success story? Why not just make up your own movie?

Oh, right, it’s because Facebook is worth 25 gazillion dollars and everyone loves it. That’s a lot of potential ticket buyers, I guess.

But let’s forget all that, and just concentrate on the movie itself. When judged on its own merits, The Social Network is a great movie. It tells the story of Mark Zuckerberg (played by Jesse Eisenberg, who I often mix up with actor Michael Cera), Harvard student and recently single, courtesy of his ex-girlfriend. To get even, Mark decides to get drunk and blog about her inadequacies for the whole world to read. While doing so, he gets the idea to create a “Hot or Not” style website called “FaceMash,” where Harvard students can look at pictures of their fellow female classmates and rank them on their attractiveness. This stunt gets him recognition, but it also lands him in hot water with the school’s administration.

However, twin brothers Cameron Winklevoss and Tyler Winklevoss (both played by Armie Hammer) decide Zuckerberg is the right man to get their social networking website idea off the ground after they hear about his FaceMash shenanigans. After listening to their pitch, Zuckerberg agrees to work on it, then blows off the brothers and basically goes into business for himself. While working on the precursor to

the Facebook everyone knows and loves, he recruits his rich friend Eduardo Saverin (Andrew Garfield) to bankroll the operation. All is good; Facebook launches, initially confined to the Harvard internet servers, and is an instant smash. Soon, it spreads to other college campuses and then across the world.

But problems start creeping in. The Winklevoss brothers think Zuckerberg stole their idea (he kinda did), and start pursuing bloody legal vengeance. Eduardo and Zuckerberg start disagreeing on the direction Facebook should be taking. And then Napster creator and all-around leech Sean Parker (Justin Timberlake) pops up and starts “helping” Zuckerberg get the big connections he needs to take Facebook to the next level, edging out Eduardo in the process. Will Facebook survive its dysfunctional upbringing, or come crashing down around the neck of its founder?

Why did I even bother asking that? Anybody who’s ever even touched a computer in the last five years knows what happens.

Despite the fact that The Social Network is mostly fiction, it’s still a great movie. It’s well-paced, well-acted, well-written, and has all the usual David Fincher visual flourishes. The dialogue is snappy, the conflicts compelling, and, even though you know where it’s going purely from a historical context, you still get into it. And let’s not forget Trent Reznor’s creepy and atmospheric electronic soundtrack, which

adds a great deal to the proceedings. As when he got the Dust Brothers to do the music for Fight Club, David Fincher again breaks ground with a cutting-edge score in one of his movies.

The acting is what really carries this film, and there isn’t a

weak member of the cast whatsoever. Jesse Eisenberg plays Zuckerberg almost like Dustin Hoffman’s Rain Man, oblivious to the whole world except for what affects him personally. He’s a wise ass, a motor mouth, and really not that great of a guy to his friends, but he still manages to be likable somehow.

Andrew Garfield as Eduardo showed a wide range of emotions throughout the movie, and how things turn out for his character really gets you to feel for the guy. But the big surprise for me was Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker…I’ve seen Timberlake in movies before and found him a solid actor, but he really turned it up to 11 here as the sleazy, underhanded Parker. You could almost feel the layer of slime on this guy through the screen. Kudos, Justin!

So, a movie (very loosely) based on Facebook can be good? Yup, it sure can. Go see it!

(Long Island, N.Y.) The original Wall Street, released in 1987, is considered iconic by the general movie going public. Well, except me, since I’ve never seen it. Shocking, I know, but it’s true. Sure, I’m familiar with the premise of what some consider to be director Oliver Stone’s magnum opus, but I’ve only caught snippets of the film on TV over the years; for some odd reason, I’ve never had a great urge to rent it. But I know that Michael Douglas’ Gordon Gekko was a crooked Wall Street tycoon who uttered the infamous line that became a mantra for 1980’s: “Greed is good.” And I know that Mr. Gekko’s wrongdoings eventually caught up with him, landing him in jail. And to be able to follow Oliver Stone’s new sequel, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps, that’s all you really need to know.

Ever the one to interject his own form of social commentary into his films, Oliver Stone set his sequel (the first he’s ever made) during the current national recession, with fictional financial firms based on the real ones that basically got us all into this mess to begin with. Gekko is finally released from the big house in 2002 after a lengthy prison sentence for securities fraud, but there’s no one to greet him at the gate when leaves. Fast-forward to 2008, and Gekko has reclaimed some of his former fame (if not wealth) as an author of a book called “Is Greed Good?”

Enter Jacob “Jake” Moore (Shia LeBoeuf), an investment broker and boyfriend of Gekko’s estranged and (frankly) rather fickle and unbalanced daughter, Winnie (Carey Mulligan). Winnie blames daddy for everything that went wrong with her life since he was shipped off to The Clink, like her brother overdosing on drugs, her parent’s divorce, world hunger, alien invasions, you name it. Talk about misdirection. But anyway, she despises her father and everything he stands for, so of course it makes perfect sense that she hops into bed with a guy who does the SAME EXACT THING FOR A LIVING, doesn’t it? Paging Dr. Freud, paging Dr. Freud, your patient is ready…

So, Jake wants to marry psycho-girl and decides that it would be best for everyone involved if he got her to reconcile with her dad. Of course, Gekko’s accomplishments on Wall Street prior to his stint in the Hoosegow have apparently given Jake a bit of a man-crush on him as well, so he attends a lecture held by Gekko and introduces himself. The duo talk and Gekko agrees to help Jake with his career (including his efforts to raise dough for a “green” fusion research project he wants to invest in) in exchange for help getting back into his daughter’s life.

Of course, while all this is going on, the financial cluster-muck that Gekko had been predicting all along is coming to bear; Keller-Zabel Investments, a banking institution that Jake works for, is going under, and Jake’s boss and mentor, Louis Zabel (Frank Langella) is none too happy about it. Attempts to secure a government bail-out for Keller-Zabel are being blocked by rival businessman Bretton James (Josh Brolin), which only makes things worse.

Meanwhile, Jake is working with Gekko behind Winnie’s back to re-unite the two, but is Gekko truly interested in establishing ties with his kin once again, or does he have more sinister plans? What is the eventual fate of Keller-Zabel, and what part does Bretton James play in Jake’s future? Does Jake’s fusion project find the funding it needs? Does someone have a secret $100 million trust fund? What is the importance of Winnie’s photograph? What happened to Jake’s huge account that was going under in the start of the movie, but is never mentioned again? Why does a 94 year-old Eli Wallach show up from time to time whistling like a friggin’ bird? Some of these questions might just be answered if you watch the film!

Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps was decent, but considering its pedigree – its director, its stars, and the classic status of the original – it should have been better. As it is, it started out somewhat engrossing, but eventually just became overlong, poorly edited, unnecessarily flashy, and lacking in any bite or edge whatsoever. It ended up a rather bland affair, and most of that can be blamed on three things: the slowly moving and developing plot, questions that are asked but never answered, and the character of Winnie. Now, Carey Mulligan is a solid actress, but her character’s motivations for…well, ANYTHING she does are all stupid and annoying, and most of the scenes with her present are among the weakest in the movie. Winnie is just a poorly, poorly written role.

The rest of the cast is solid, but apparently on auto-pilot. Douglas was entertaining but oddly subdued. As for LeBoeuf, he maintained the status quo as far as his acting quality goes; either you love him or hate him. Personally, I like the kid, and in the right movies (such as 2007’s Disturbia), he can really show his talents. I just think he needs a role that will really stretch his range a bit more than it has been thus far in his career. The only one in the cast that REALLY impressed me was Josh Brolin as the smarmy, sleazy Bret (ah-hum, excuse me…it’s “Bretton” now) James; the former Goonies star has certainly come a long way. Oh, and Frank Langella was pretty good too.

So, overall, Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps starts out are very intriguing, but quickly gets marred down in its own self-importance, becoming disjointed without really providing as much entertainment as it should. You get the feeling that the scenes that could tie everything together better and provide the plot more cohesion are lying on a cutting room floor somewhere, and maybe they’ll show up on DVD in a nice Director’s Cut or something. Until then, the new Wall Street sequel will remain a bit of a letdown.

(Long Island, N.Y.) The American was an unexpected pleasure for me. Quiet, moody, and above all else, atmospheric, it’s an

odd little movie and certainly not one you’d expect to open in first place at the box office. But that Windows 8.1 Standard Key online it did, and the world is a better place for it.

Jack (George Clooney) is an assassin. One day while hanging around his remote, snowbound cabin in Sweden with his lady friend, Jack comes under fire from some mysterious thugs. Establishing that Jack is indeed no run-of-the mill hit-man but a ruthless and talented killer, he easily takes out Buy Windows 8.1 Enterprise Key Code his attackers with a hidden firearm. Then, just to prove that he’s

a romantic

smoothie at heart, Jack plugs his lady friend in the back of the head as well; turns out she saw too much. Needless to say the [something the rhymes with spit]

has hit the fan, and Jack is told by his boss Pavel (Johan Leysen) to head to a little mountain town in Italy to lay low for a while.

While holed up in his dingy little apartment, Jack passes the time by doing pushups, swilling wine with the local priest, Father Benedetto (Paolo Bonacelli), and doing completely unsanitary things with a local prostitute named Clara (Violante Placido). But mostly, Jack just mopes around. You see, like all seasoned assassins, Jack has grown weary of the trade and the isolation that comes with it, and wants out. He tells his boss this fact, and shockingly, he accepts his employee’s decision…but, of course, he just needs him to do one last job first. However, Jack doesn’t have to pull the trigger; he just has to provide another killer with the weapon of her choice.

Mathilde (Thekla Reuten), the hit-man…er, hit-woman in question, shows up and details the specs of a custom sniper rifle that Jack then constructs for her. While building the weapon, the events in Sweden catch up with Jack; he notices people following him nightly, and eventually it leads to gunfire as an attempt is made on his life. Things get even more complicated as things ramp up emotionally with Clara (why do guys always fall in love with hookers in movies? That’s just gross), and Pavel starts giving off a vibe that perhaps he’s not so happy about Jack leaving his employ after all…

The American is everything modern movies are not: it’s slow-paced, smoothly shot, and edited with restraint. In that sense, it’s actually extremely refreshing compared to the ADD-inspired film-making of today. There’s not much in the way of story, and even dialogue is kept on the light side, but the film is more effective that way; it is steeped deeply in it’s dark and brooding atmosphere, and what story is revealed only serves to make the proceedings all the more engrossing. This isn’t a story about what people did in their past, so much as a tale of what they’re doing right now.

George Clooney gives a surprisingly restrained performance, portraying Jack as silent yet emotional, detached yet longing for someone to love…well, I should say, someone to love that he doesn’t have to shoot in the head when she catches

an eyeball of something she shouldn’t have. As a result, we have a character

with all-too-human frailties, both emotional and physical, yet still a frighteningly effective and intelligent killer when the need arises.

The rest of the cast were unknowns…well, at least unknown to me, but everyone else did their job, and did it

well.

The locations, including snow-encrusted Sweden and Castelvecchio, a small town in the mountains of Abruzzo, Italy, were all uniformly breathtaking and yet barren and secluded, adding to the feeling of loneliness. But the quiet nature of The American only serves to underscore its action scenes all the more. And speaking of action scenes, there are few, but to be honest, that’s okay. The film doesn’t need the crutch of things blowing up every five seconds to carry it along to its (sadly, somewhat lame) conclusion.

The American was one of the better movies I’ve seen in recent memory, and yet another solid effort by George Clooney, who shows a delicate range here that will serve to remind moviegoers how underrated he can be as a dramatic actor. Highly recommended.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Resident Evil: Afterlife, the fourth film based on Capcom’s best-selling video-game series, is the ultimate example of flash and style over substance. Directed by Paul W. S. Anderson (are you surprised?), Afterlife contains no story, no characters you care about, and nothing even remotely resembling a realistic moment in the entire movie-

it’s just plastic, CG-laden, and a good example of everything that’s wrong with modern movies.

But with that said, I have to admit that the Resident Evil movies all retain some base degree of entertainment value. I admit to being a fan of the games, and seeing the various characters and monsters transformed from polygons and pixels into live, twisted and

quivering flesh is actually quite cool. But beyond that, there’s something about watching a solid, dumb, fast-paced sci-fi/action movie that aspires to be nothing more than just that. It’s better than the sorrow of a film with a great idea or premise that just horribly screws it up, at least. But on that note, I always give points for trying.

Resident Evil: Afterlife picks up right where Resident Evil: Extinction left off: the evil Umbrella Corporation’s T-Virus

bio-weapon research has gotten a wee bit out of hand, and almost the entire Earth is overrun with zombies and other assorted creatures. Alice (Milla Jovovich, reprising the role for the fourth time), a former Umbrella employee turned T-Virus enhanced powerhouse, continues her

fight against her former bosses with the aid of her army of clones, who were created at the end of the last movie.

The twig-thin Jovovich gets more and more tiresome as she continues to play nothing but unstoppable superhuman characters throughout her career, and the thought of dozens of her running around didn’t exactly have me overjoyed. But the beginning of Afterlife fixes this

problem quite effectively by blowing up all the Alice clones and having main Umbrella baddie Albert Wesker (Shawn Roberts) rob the original of her powers. Right on, Al! A waif-like, unstoppable juggernaut Alice who can easily fight monsters on their own terms is just silly, but a normal Alice with real human frailties might actually generate some tension. It doesn’t, however; turns out she’s still pretty tough, even without the T-Virus in her system.

The now fully-human Alice moves on, looking for other survivors of the zombie apocalypse. She first runs into old buddy Claire Redfield (Ali Larter), and then into a gang holed up in an abandoned prison, all of whom are looking for the fabled safe haven known as “Arcadia.” But does it really exist? And if so, will they find it before Umbrella (or even just the millions of zombies shambling around) closes in for the kill?

One major problem with Resident Evil: Afterlife is it’s complete dependence on the viewer having seen and being intimately familiar with the other films in the series. But even if you are (guilty!), it STILL comes across as oddly random and, in parts, even sloppy. Example: Alice is in an Umbrella base near the end of the film and notices that a character named “K-Mart” is being held captive there and gets all excited…meanwhile, this is the first time “K-Mart” is even mentioned in the movie. Now, for those of you who don’t know, she’s actually some kid they ran across in the pervious movie who got her name from the K-Mart store they found her in. I think she couldn’t talk or something, which is why they stuck her with that ridiculous moniker. I don’t really remember, but frankly, it’s embarrassing that I even know THAT much. Anyway, no one watching probably had any idea who K-Mart (the person, not the store) is, and the movie didn’t bother to tell them. But it’s not important who K-Mart actually is, because she’s only in the movie for about 37 seconds and has no dialogue; I guess I was right about her not being able to talk.

Wow, that was a long paragraph about not much of anything. Hmm.

Oh, and director Paul W. S. Anderson continues to refuse to grow as a filmmaker or writer, except in terms of robbing flashy and pointless camera and effects shots from better movies and paying less and less attention to character development while doing it. Alas, the promising young Paul Anderson (no “W.S.” back then) that directed awesome movies like Event Horizon (which had crazy things like “plot,” “atmosphere,” and “memorable characters”) appears to be long dead and buried. Sigh.

Still, on the plus side, Afterlife’s highly-touted 3D effects (filmed with James Cameron’s 3D Fusion Camera System, which he developed for Avatar) were very convincing. The movie also had some neat fight scenes, Jovovich’s Alice character became 10,000% less annoying by losing her superpowers, and the appearance of several characters and monsters lifted directly from the Resident Evil video-games, such as the “giant hooded axe-wielding dude” from Resident Evil 5 and the first live-action appearance of

series mainstay Chris Redfield (played by Wentworth Miller) and Albert Wesker (well, he popped up at the end of Extinction, but whatever), were all really cool.

Overall Resident Evil: Afterlife is decent, brainless fun, but just as vapid and instantly forgettable as the rest of the RE films.

(Long Island, N.Y.) Machete started life as a fake trailer attached to the 2007 Robert Rodriguez/Quentin Tarantino “Grindhouse” double feature, but the crazy, violent, and altogether awesome-looking tale it suggested garnered enough fan reaction that Rodriguez decided to convert it into a full-length, feature film. Maybe he should have just left it alone. I seem to be going against the grain here with my opinion of Machete, as it’s getting positive reactions for the most part, but I’m not buying into the hype. Aside from maybe 2 or 3 really awesome scenes, this movie is terrible. However, I’m sorely tempted to say that these 2 or 3 scenes are actually SO awesome that they’re worth sitting through the rest of the movie for. Indeed.

Danny Trejo, a re-occurring player in Rodriguez’s cinematic universe for years, stars in his first lead as the eponymous Machete, reprising his role from the Grindhouse trailer. He’s plays a Mexican ex-Federale turned day laborer who’s picked up outside of Home Depot for a job by Michael Booth (Jeff Fahey, also returning from the trailer), a local businessman. No, Booth doesn’t want Machete to mow his lawn or clean his pool…he wants him to assassinate the evil Senator McLaughlin (Robert De Niro), a man whose political agenda involves building an electric fence to keep illegal Mexicans out of the United States. Oh, and hunting and shooting them with his buddy, Von Jackson (Don Johnson), but that’s supposed to be a secret. Machete reluctantly takes the job, but is soon double-crossed and left for dead. Gathering all the huge pointy things he can find, Machete sets out to teach the bad guys they just messed with the wrong Mexican!

Sadly, Machete was probably made 10 years too late- Danny Trejo came across as a beat-up, broken-down old man who can barely fight, walk, or even move. He’s still amusing in little bit parts, but as the main character in his own movie he was actually boring. I know Trejo has been elevated in geek culture to the exalted status of other B-movie icons such as Bruce Campbell and Jeffery Combs, and personally I think he deserves his accolades from all the fanboys. But as a leading action star? No.

Too many corny, talky scenes, too much bad digital gore (especially where physical gore effects would have worked better- that’s just lazy), and barely any good laughs brought this movie down several notches for me. Plus, most of the action scenes seemed poorly staged and filmed, which is an oddity in a Robert Rodriguez movie. Instead of just having a blast within the exploitation genre’s conventions (which is what he claimed he was going to do), he wastes too much effort trying to build up his multi-character story, focusing more on the bad guys and co-stars at points rather than Machete, which had the effect of rendering him marginalized. The same thing happened in Rodriguez’s “Once Upon a Time in Mexico,” with similar negative results.

Machete has a pretty eclectic ensemble cast, and most of them add a great deal to the proceedings to distract from how bad Trejo is in the lead. Michelle Rodriguez was a stand-out, playing her usual tough-girl role that she always plays, Cheech Marin was funny in his short appearance (again, his character was in the original Grindhouse trailer), and Robert De Niro seemed to be having a blast with his part. It’s the first time the legendary actor’s looked alive in a film in years. Oh, and Jeff Fahey was just plain awesome, although a bit more grizzled-looking than he was back in the fake trailer.

However, Jessica Alba was bland as always, and Lindsay Lohan was not only terrible, but her character (and her obvious body double for her “topless” scene) was completely pointless.

And the end fight between Machete and “guest-villain” and tubby former 80’s action star Steven Seagal looked like two crippled old men in the park swinging their canes at each other. But while that whole scene was just sad, Seagal himself was pretty entertaining in his role as a Mexican drug lord. And that “Bionic Man” sound effect (you know, “te-te-te-te-te”) that went off every time he drew his sword just hand me in stitches. I can’t explain why.

We all knew this couldn’t be as good as the Grindhouse trailer, but it’s just crazy to me how badly Rodriguez missed the mark here. It’s not that Machete is the worst movie ever made, or even the worst movie released this year or even this month…no, it’s crime is the wasted potential that oozes from every frame. Still, the scene where Machete uses a foe’s intestines to swing through a window to safety is worth the price of a ticket alone. Too bad the whole movie isn’t that unhinged…

(Long Island, N.Y.) Well, I guess it was asking too much to review three solid movies in a row, wasn’t it? Alas, Takers, a crime flick directed by John Luessenhop, breaks the streak. Like Piranha 3D last week, Takers boasts an ensemble cast of D-grade actors, but unlike the killer fish movie, these guys don’t manage to make the film enjoyable. Matt Dillon, the “Fast and Furious” Paul Walker, “Kid Darth Vader” Hayden Christensen, Chris Brown, Idris Elba, T.I., Jay Hernandez, and Zoe Saldana round out the cast, and each of them tries their hardest to look real pretty while wearing designer suits and spewing out an endless stream of horrible diolague. Walker puts it best when he says at one point:

“We’re takers. We take things. That’s what we do.” Yeah. Okay. It’s like they took 1995’s Heat, an actual good movie, and made it metro-sexual. And, as the risk of being redundant, stupid.

So, Takers is about a gang of…um, “Takers.” The gang is made up of Gordon (Idris Elba), A.J. (Hayden Christensen), John (Paul Walker), Jake (Michael Ealy) and his brother Jesse (Chris Brown). Anyway, the “Takers” want to “take” money from a bank that’s on the 14th floor of a skyscraper. Oh, and then this buddy of theirs named Ghost (T.I.) gets out of the joint and wants to do a fun little armored car job ’cause he’s got debts to settle. And let’s not forget the Russian mobsters that Ghost met in lock-up who show up to make life difficult for our well-dressed heroes.

Matt Dillon and Jay Hernandez also play cops who are forced to deal with all these shenanigans, but I can’t feel sorry for them because I know they’re really actors playing cops and they’re getting paid. The audience isn’t, sadly.

Takers’ story is unoriginal and actually pretty bad, and while the acting is nothing to write home about either, there’s at least a few stand-outs among its cast. Kid Vader…I mean, Hayden Christensen, actually manages to impress slightly more than he did in the horrible Star Wars prequels. Suffice it to say, he handles a broomstick better than he does a light-saber, at least. T.I., a rapper (and one of the film’s producers) does a solid job as the smooth-talking Ghost, the member of the “Takers” that shows up back on the scene with a hidden agenda after doing a five year stretch in the pen. Dillion, meanwhile, does his usual act, but playing the same part in every movie he makes somehow seems to work for him, so whatever.

On the other side, Paul Walker can’t act. At all. Yet he keeps getting cast in movies- I think he’s doing yet another Vin Diesel car racing flick after this. He must be stopped!

Aside from the actors, there’s lots and lots of stylish shootouts in Takers but, as much as I love action, they still manage to bore. It’s like the producers knew they had a dud on their hands and insisted that lots of mayhem shot in totally conflicting styles would cover it up, and the end result is the ultimate expression of style over substance (or realism). Like, there’s a shootout in a hotel room and 800 tons of feathers are flying everywhere even though there’s only 4 or 5 pillows in the room.

But, the evil plans of Takers’ producers appears to have worked: Takers was number one at the box office this past week. It’s not a crime that it

was number one-

I mean, it’s not a horrible movie. In fact, out of the rather barren field of ‘eh’ movies available this week, you certainly could have done worse, but it’s just so generic. The look, the feel, the lines…you’ve seen them a million times before, done better. Come to think of it, I said almost the same thing about Piranha 3D last week, but somehow that movie still ended up being enjoyable while Takers was just a chore.

It’s all about your attitude- Piranha 3D aspired to be a lighthearted throwback to T&A monster movies, while Takers aspires to be nothing more than a GQ ad with guns. Still, like I said, out of what’s currently available in theaters, you could do worse. Not much, but it’s possible.

(Long Island, N.Y.) First off: Piranha 3D, a remake of the 1978 film is…well, it’s just nuts. It probably has the most gore and boobies out of any R-rated movie ever made, which in and of itself is an impressive feat; it speaks loudly of how lax the ratings board has gotten in this country in recent years. For example, back in the 80’s, the Friday The 13th films were forced by censors to chop out so much objectionable footage to avoid an X-rating (NC-17 wasn’t introduced until 1990) that the end result was almost like a children’s series compared to some of the R-rated stuff we see nowadays. If Piranha 3D was released back in the 80’s, the world would have ended- it’s THAT over-the-top.

But therein lies my problem: I’m a man, and men like boobies and gore in their horror movies. Piranha 3D has these two assets like gangbusters. But I’m also a film critic, and I have to tell you if a movie is any good. I’m not saying it has to be a classic; I’m no art snob. A movie just has to excel within the boundaries of its chosen genre to be successful, as far as I’m concerned. Now, Piranha 3D has gotten a lot of positive press for it’s tongue-in-cheek, “more is not enough” approach, but personally, as a horror buff, I feel the movie doesn’t do anything that countless others have already done. And while, as a man, I was impressed with all the skin and crimson goo flying around the screen during the film’s 89 minutes, as a critic, I found Piranha 3D to be rather simple and generic…albeit good fun.

Piranha 3D wastes no time getting going: a character played by Richard Dreyfuss (um, what?) is fishing in Lake Victoria, AZ. An earthquake hits, opening up the lake floor to yet another underground lake that’s been sealed off for thousands of years. Thousands of deadly prehistoric piranha are unleashed and proceed to eat Richard Dreyfuss and anyone else they can get their teeth on. Luckily for the piranha, the lake is apparently Spring Break party central and packed with drunken, half-naked college kids, and after a brief build-up, the dinner bell is rung and the blood starts a flowin’.

Alexandre Aja burst onto the scene in 2003 with High Tension, an awesome (the first 86 minutes) yet frustrating (the last 5 minutes) serial killer tale, and has since made a name for himself as a talented horror director. Piranha 3D’s cheese factor almost seems a bit of a step back for him, but given the film’s positive critical and box office reception, it might just help boost his career- hey, everyone has to lower their standards here and there, right? Besides, Aja manages to inject a certain degree of class into the proceedings; the 5 minute long underwater nude ballet scene is a prime example. It’s both beautiful and crazy, and damn it, I couldn’t tear my eyes away. But I’m not ashamed.

The piranha themselves are, of course, CG; there’s no way to really do them convincingly with physical props. Most of the gore is CG also, but when practical make-up effects are used, sadly, they tend to fail to impress. The 3D effects are decent but I still marvel that the best 3D I’ve ever seen in a movie was years ago when I watched Terminator 2: 3D at Universal Studios. Now THAT was impressive.

Piranha 3D is given a bit of a boost by an amusing ensemble cast consisting of a lot of people that will make you go, “Hey, I haven’t seen them in years!” Elisabeth Shue, the aforementioned Richard Dreyfuss, Jerry O’Connell, Christopher Lloyd, Ving Rhames, and Dina Meyer all join newcomers like Steven R. McQueen and Jessica Szohr. Everyone really gets into their roles and the absurd premise of the picture and that’s a good chunk of the reason why Piranha 3D works as well as it does.

But while Piranha 3D is a solid horror/comedy flick that out-gores and out-T&A’s ’em all, the reason I’m not completely embracing it like many others is because, like I said above, I’ve seen it all before…and done better. I’ve watched the Evil Dead trilogy, Dead Alive, Return Of The Living Dead, and numerous other campy gore movies and while Piranha 3D is a great throwback, it’s missing the “X-Factor” that made those movies genuine cult classics. It comes damn close, however.

So, if you’re in the mood for blood, guts, and an endless stream of naked teenage girls (and who isn’t? Oh, hi mom!), then Piranha 3D should make you very happy. And, depending on how delicate you are, possibly sick, either from the gore, or the 3D effects. You’ve been warned!

(Long Island, N.Y.) In March of this year I reviewed the latest Kevin Smith bomb, a police comedy (using that word loosely) called Cop Out. That film is a perfectly wonderful example of how NOT to make a parody of cop buddy flicks. Actually, it’s a perfectly wonderful example of how not to make ANY movie in ANY genre, but that’s not really the topic at hand. Let’s just say it was bad and move on.

The Other Guys, yet another cop buddy parody, is actually the movie Cop Out should have been. In other words, it’s (usually, but not always) smart, clever, and above all else, funny. No, it’s not original – as I covered in my Cop Out review, this concept has been done to death – but within the confines of its plot and execution, it’s as solid an entry into the crowded action-comedy market as we’ve seen in quite some time.

Things haven’t been going well for Detective Terry Hoitz (Mark Wahlberg) ever since accidentally blasting Derek Jeter during the 2003 World Series. Most notably, he’s been stuck with Detective Allen Gamble (Will Ferrell), an annoying and straight-laced accountant, as his partner ever since. The two oddballs are constantly ostracized by their idols, the two “supercops” of his division: Danson (Dwayne Johnson) and Highsmith (Samuel L. Jackson). But after a freak accident removes them from the picture, Hoitz and Gamble are given the chance to prove themselves by taking over Danson and Highsmith’s high-profile back robbery case. Of course, they fail miserably, but if they actually stepped up to the challenge and actually proved themselves to be competent in any way, we’d have ourselves an entirely different movie, wouldn’t we?

The Other Guys is a fun little movie. Will Ferrell plays…well, Will Ferrell. I mean, why does he ever play anything but a child-like goof prone to outbursts of insanity and violence? Hey, stick with your strengths, I say. Mark Wahlberg, however, is a newcomer to comedy (well, unless you count his performance in 2008’s laugh-fest The Happening), and there’s a legit novelty involved in watching him act silly instead of all hard-edged and serious. But when’s all said and done, he’s actually pretty good at being funny. And when combined, Ferrell and Wahlberg make a rather amusing duo; greater than the combined might of Cop Out’s Bruce Willis and Tracy Morgan, but falling shy of the almighty pairing of Mel Gibson and Danny Glover in Lethal Weapon, the measuring stick for all buddy cop movies until the end of time.

Michael Keaton (as Ferrell and Wahlberg’s long-suffering Chief) and Eva Mendes (as Ferrell’s in-explicitly hot wife) show up as well, as does one of my favorites, Ray Stevenson. Oh, and Sam Jackson and Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson make the most of their surprisingly brief roles before their characters depart the picture. So yes, there’s a good supporting cast at work here, rest assured.

Of course, actors are only as funny as their script allows them to be. Luckily, director and co-writer Adam McKay has proved to be successful in his collaborations with Will Ferrell in the past, with the duo producing hits together such as Anchorman (2004), Talladega Nights (2006), and Step Brothers (2008). All three of the aforementioned movies were solid, if flawed, and The Other Guys falls right into line with that sensibility. It’s got laughs, it’s got action, but it doesn’t quite have consistency, with patches spread throughout where nothing blows up or makes you laugh. But rest assured- eventually the movie always comes out of its rut and you’ll find yourself laughing once more.

So, Ferrell and Wahlberg have made a fairly good movie together, and you should seriously consider seeing it…especially if you’re among the unfortunate seven people who saw Cop Out when it was in theaters and need something to help kill the still-lingering pain you’re suffering under.

(Long Island, N.Y.) You know how I’m always whining that today’s action movies are lightweights compared to the hard-as-nails flicks from the heyday of pure action, the 1980’s? That today’s action stars are, for the most part, pretty-boy sissies who do all their fighting in the editing room and not on the set? Well, it figures that it would take the granddaddies of 80’s action to come back from the grave for one last hurrah and show all the modern wussies how it’s done. The Expendables are here, and people are gonna DIE.

The Expendables is written, directed by, and starring Sylvester Stallone, and co-starring Arnold Schwarzenegger (who, despite his top billing, is barely in the movie 5 minutes…me sad), Bruce Willis (who doesn’t do much, either), Dolph Lundgren, Mickey Rourke, Jet Li,

Jason Statham, Terry Crews, Randy Couture, and Steve Austin. The collective cast is so filled with testosterone (and possibly other substances) that a normal human within 50 feet of any screen showing of The Expendables will probably pass out from the sheer force of manliness radiating towards the audience.

Conspicuous by their absences are 80’s mainstays Jean Claude Van Damme (who was offered a role but sadly turned it down) and Steven Seagal, who will nonetheless be returning to theaters (after a long hiatus in Direct-to-DVD land) in the upcoming Robert Rodriguez film Machete.

Anyway, the plot, such as it is: The Expendables are a team of highly-trained mercenaries who are sent in to do in some evil South American dictator. Plot thickens, a woman gets involved, trouble brews, people get shot, things blow up, and…well, that’s about it, really. I mean it- I know I usually drone on and on in my plot recaps, but in this case I couldn’t draw it out any more if I tried.

Let’s get the obvious out of the way: the story is terrible; it’s beyond brain dead and often makes no sense. The dialogue is terrible; lines are delivered that you can’t believe were actually written down for other human beings to recite with a straight face. However, the violence is glorious…no, it’s not as bloodthirstily savage as Stallone’s 2008 Rambo, and it’s nothing compared to the King Of All Action Movies, Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 1985 fun-filled family classic, Commando. But The Expendables is still a hard-hitting, take-no-prisoners film that succeeds in splattering a great many bad guys like blood-filled balloons, and that’s all people are expecting (and wanting) out of it, anyway. There’s this one scene where Statham strafes a dock of baddies from the nose of a plane that’s especially satisfying.

The collected tough guys that make up the cast of The Expendables is its main draw; these guys are the reason people are going to be plunking down their hard-earned dough at the box office. And for the most part, this mix of old and new action stars deliver. Yeah, they’re fighting a horrible script as much as they are the film’s villains, but most of them are given their chance to shine eventually. But the movie mainly belongs to Stallone and Statham, with the other players relegated mostly to bit-part status. But with a cast this huge that’s to be expected, although you

still might walk away disappointed that some characters get the shaft, as far as screen-time goes.

One thing I have to mention: where does Stallone come up with the names he gives his characters? I mean, “Lee Christmas?” “Hale Caesar?” “Yin Yang?” Mr. T somehow made the name “Clubber Lang” seem cool back in the day when Rocky 3 first came out, but that was due more to his innate charisma than anything else. And it seems that Stallone’s somewhat suspect naming abilities have decreased an order of magnitude since then- there’s no way Terry Crews can pull off a name like Hale Caesar without eliciting some (or rather, many) unintentional laughs. But in his defense, I doubt Mr. T could, either.

Well, maybe. He IS Mr. T, after all. Too bad he’s not in this movie.

So, if you’re looking for a trip back in time to an era when men were men and killed other men like men, then The Expendables is for you. Otherwise, go run home to your momma.

(Long Island, N.Y.) It’s depressing when you find yourself watching a movie that could have been amazing if a different editor had cut it during post-production. As it is, Dinner for Schmucks is a two-hour long movie that would probably have been better served if it clocked in at about one and a half. Maybe even less.

Nonetheless, the latest film starring Steve Carell (two weeks ago I reviewed his excellent animated film, Despicable Me) is still consistently amusing throughout. Yes, towards the end it was really evoking the “how long IS this movie, anyway?” syndrome, but even then, I still found a steady stream of chuckles issuing forth from my person. However, it’s hard to give Dinner for Schmucks a recommendation based just on the fact that it manages to balance lighthearted entertainment and complete boredom alost equally. Luckily, it has a bit more going for it…but remember, folks, a bit ain’t a lot.

Remember that 1991 film Dogfight? No? Well, it was about these guys who had a party where the winner was the one that brought the ugliest date. But one of the guys wasn’t quite as mean as the others, ended up feeling bad, and actually became friends with his dog…er, girl. Dinner for Schmucks is kind of like that; just replace “ugly girl” with “idiot,” and there it is.

Tim Conrad (Paul Rudd) is a fella trying to get ahead in business. After a colleague is axed from his upper-rung gig, Tim makes the big moves in an attempt to get into his cushy corner office. The bosses take notice, and in an attempt to further gauge the up-and-coming

executive, invite him to their annual “Dinner For Winners,” where whoever brings the biggest whacko wins…well, they don’t ever actually say what they win. Bragging rights, I guess.

At first Tim targets an eccentric artist client of his annoying girlfriend, Julie (Stephanie Szostak), but all that is forgotten once he accidentally runs over Barry Speck (Carell) with his Porsche. Turns out Barry is a cross of Carell’s 40 Year-Old Virgin character and a Taxidermist, spending hours stuffing and mounting dead mice

in all sorts of disturbingly cute outfits. Seeing this as his big chance to win the contest, Tim invites the lonely Barry to the “Dinner For Winners,” and Barry accepts. Thus begins the slow, systematic destruction of Tim’s life as the well-meaning (but clearly insane) Barry tries to help out his new friend at every opportunity…with disastrous results.

As Carell might have said in his recent Get Smart remake, Dinner for Schmucks missed the mark “by just that much.” It’s cute, and sustains a mild degree of laughs throughout, which I’d take over a dull flick with maybe or or two big laughs any day. But whoever string the footage together in the editing room…well, they needed to be a bit more ruthless. I mean, just because you filmed it doesn’t mean it should be in the movie. There are entire scenes and characters that could have been removed which would have tightened things up significantly, but as it is, Dinner for Schmucks just kind of plods along for two hours, alternating humor and ennui at every turn.

It’s especially a shame since the leads bring so much to the table. I used to just associate the talented Steve Carell with straight-laced, deadpan humor only, but his recent turns in Despicable Me

and this movie have clearly expanded my view of his skills. The man has a greater range than I thought, both in terms of physical comedy and voice acting.

Paul Rudd makes a near-perfect foil and straight-man for Carell, playing a nice guy forced to do cut-throat things to get the big promotion. The Hangover’s Zach Galifianakis pops up as Carell’s bizarre, mind-controlling boss, and makes the most of his small role. Stephanie Szostak’s Julie was just there to look pretty and generally be annoying, and I’m getting tired of the over-abundance of these types of female roles choking the film industry lately. There are plenty of funny, talented women working in comedy these days who could use a big break (for example, Maria Bamford) and instead they always cast generic model-types who can barely act in the “girlfriend” parts instead. At least Lucy Punch, who played Tim’s crazy stalker, was funny and displayed loads of personality, unlike Szostak, who was a total bore.

Still, despite its problems, I still feel okay about having seen Dinner for Schmucks. It’s uneven, imperfect, and overlong, sure, but it’s also funny and charming at the same time. If you’re a fan of Carell or just looking for something a little different, give it a try.